Duke v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided January 22, 1929

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1929-01-22

Relies on 18 Ala. App. 277 - Baxley v. State · Austin v. State · Humphrey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-01-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1987

14 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 The state’s ease depend,ed' upon the' testimony of one Sam Duke, and without this testimony the defendant would have been entitled to the general charge. On the trial the defendant requested this charge: “If the guilt of the defendant depends upon the testimony of the State witness, Sam Duke; and you have a reasonable doubt of the truthfulness of this witness’s testimony, then you should find the defendant not guilty.” In this ease this was a good charge and should have been given. In Baxley v. State, 18 Ala. App. 277-279, 90 So. 434, it was pointed out when this charge should be given and when not. Ex parte Baxley, 206 Ala. 698, 90 So. 925.

¶2 For the error in refusing the above charge, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

¶3 Reversed and remanded.